attribution of income to a wife that remarried to a rich guy and wont work

[massback]

my exwife remarried to a rich guy, wont work, even though she has an MBA and work history. I want to take her back to court to reduce child support on the basis of imputing income and that she has access to and enjoys his income and assets.

Has any MAN here done this successfully? if yes, HOW? what law did you point at (in my state, MA, there is a very vague law in GL 208, section 28, and a couple of cases where a woman successfully got the court to attribute to a man the income of HIS new wife)?  What facts did you actually have to show? What kind of reduction did you get?

I am going out of my mind with this, so any help would be appreciated.

[raf]

Did she work during your marriage? If so, can't you have the court impute income to her? Is MA a Shared Income state concerning CS?

[massback]

MA is a % of gross income of the NCP state, adjusted down based on the income of the custodial parent (after many adjustments). MY ex did work in a good job etc, but she stopped working when she moved him in, and has not worked in four years. My last attempt to get the court to impute income did not go anywhere, but i did not force it into a trial. this time I would like to, but not sure what to say other than the obvious: that the state law says both parents should contribute monetarily, and that the financial circumstances of second marriages should be taken into account. Any advice or insight would be very much appreciated!

Massback

[joni]

Depends on your state, my DH is in Michigan.  I have the software to compute.  If I put in the current earnings of both the Ex and my husband and then I double the Ex's earnings, our child support is only reduced by $40/mo.  

Before you go throwing good money after bad, you need to get the software to calculate or the tables for your state and compute the difference.  As you can see in our state, the custodial parents income can exceed the noncustodial and there's no major reduction to the payor.

[massback]

well she will go from zero to 65K so it should do something. if her husband's income is included, even a small fraction of what he pulls down... watch out!

[joni]

most states won't include the spouse's income

I'm trying to ground you here buddy, I'm telling you it's not going to be the huge impact you think it is.  For grins and giggles, I doubled my husband's Ex wife's income from $50K to $100 and it only had a impact of a $40/mo reduction in our child support amount.

Don't get your hopes up.

[my3sons]

I think what Joni said was correct if you are not in a shared custody situation.  But in a shared custody situation such as mine, it can make a difference of two or three hundred dollars per month.  

I've just filed for a very similar situation.  I've got 50/50 shared custody of my 3 boys, and my ex works only about 20 hours per week as a nurse.  She's got time to volunteer at the local rescue squad (so much so that she's now their captain!) yet doesn't feel that she needs to work full-time to support her kids.  (Gee, I wonder if the court would accept that from me??)
She's been claiming to go to school for almost 8 years now (she's 31 years old) and that's always her reasoning for working less and needing more support.  Well, I've been going to college 3/4 time for two years now, yet I still work full-time and take care of my kids as well.

I've served her and am awaiting her answer.  I cited Maryland Family Law section §12-201.  This section clearly defines what is meant by the term "voluntary impoverishment", and I believe my ex falls into this definition rather clearly.  

I'm filing Pro-se, Maryland has a great pro-se assistance project, you may want to see if MA has one too.  I'll keep you posted on how my case goes and what the court requires of me if you'd like.

[massback]

Hi,

Thank you for the reply. Ma doesnt seem to have any help and the judge is very hostile to me as Pro Se, but I have no choice.

I am the NCP, but the Mass formula is such that adding an imputed income of the 65K or more magnitude will make a difference.  My state doesnt adjust in the formula for percent of time with the dad, thus, if I even had them 49% of the time, it would not matter a bit!

Our law says that they have to also contribute financially to the kids.  There are complications as the orders were done when the kids were below six y/o, and now much older, and one of them has special needs, but is in full day school and has a full time nanny and other help, so there is no excuse to not work.  i intend to show in a full evidentiary hearing that she has been on vacations for literally about 80 days a year in the past two years - they have a place on an Island etc...

ugh!!